Post your interesting INTO THE WOODS photos!

[kyle.]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 12:54am

Were you in an interesting production of Into the Woods? Do you know someone who was? Do you have pictures?

Post them here!

A close friend of mine is directing it next summer and we would love to get some cool ideas for costumes, sets, lighting, concepts, etc!

Or if you don't have pictures, feel free to describe what you did or saw!

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!!

[Tag]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 1:04am

Hire a designer.

[kyle.]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 1:26am

D. I. V. A.

I was simply wondering if anyone had anything to share. It is produced by community theatres very often and I'm sure wonderful ideas have come up along the way. There is nothing wrong with discussing and sharing what has and hasn't worked in the past.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 2:33am

If they can't come up with their own directoral concepts they ave no right directing.

I am not even mentioning my production untill it has happened then i will share.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 2:33am

http://images.google.com

If you must.

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 4:39am

I constantly marvel at how mean-spirited most people on this board are.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 5:24am

Nah, just honest...

[otis33]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 11:33am

Nah, just mean...

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 12:04pm

I don't see anything wrong with his request. Into the Woods is a fascinating show and can be interpreted in a 100 different ways. It's always interesting to see how the many productions of it differ. Yes, the director of said show should use his own ideas, but this could have been a fun thread, nonetheless.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 12:28pm

Wow! A 10-second search on Google found these!

Oh, the horror! Oh, the horror!

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 12:38pm

Did a production set in the 1940's/50's when hypnotism was on the rise. The narrator was a hypnotist who hypnotized a bunch of us at a world's fair sort of setting and we became these fairy tale characters.

It was very, very fascinating. Trees were only black lines simple to Rhorscach (spelling?) tests.

[HamletWasBipolar]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 12:47pm

How was that achieved without breaking copyright laws? I mean, you can't add things or make cuts without permission.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 12:48pm

Maybe you should pitch that idea to John Doyle, theater trash.

[thejcm]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 3:29pm

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 3:59pm

I LOVED thew revival, but will always hold that OBC set and design IS the show. The London production had some VERY original concepts and visual effects.

[Candleshoe2]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 9:10pm

BrodyFosse123,

That third photo was actually from a production near where I live. It was not the best, even for a high school. The set never changed and the audience didn't get half the jokes. Very slow paced performance.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 9:15pm

I personally felt the revival was superior to the OBC. Much more engaging.

[kyle.]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:29pm

I've read little bits about the London production, but I've never actually heard what they did. Anyone see it? I would love to hear about it.

Sorry to those of you at the top of the thread who were offended by this post, but I didn't deserve to be reprimanded by fellow regulars on the board for posting. It would be one thing if I had registered last night and asked that question, obviously posting only to get ideas for a production. But I've been here for over 3 years. Give me a break. After the director and I were discussing different productions and his ideas over dinner last night, the idea just popped into my head to ask people what they had done with the show. It was totally innocent.

Yes, you can look at 100s of production photos of Into the Woods on google, but I wanted to know from people on this board about interesting productions they had seen or been involved in. Thats why I posted.

If I had posted only asking for people to share because I was curious to hear what different theatres had done with it, wouldn't you all have jumped at the opportunity to talk about your interesting production? Even though I'm sure many community and regional directors read these boards? There was no reason to treat me the way you did.

[jv92]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:41pm

I found the sets for the revival to be lush and quite beautiful, but all wrong. It made the show too much of a spectacle. The Broadway set was most effective.

[Candleshoe2]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 11:01pm

I agree. The less elaborate the sets are, the more the performances of the actors stand out. I thought that the simple, yet complex design to the Original Broadway production really made the show seem more mature and dark, as opposed to how it was done in the Broadway Revival with the bright colors and special effects. The Broadway Revival just seemed like they wanted to aim the show more towards children, which is great, but I think the show is really pulled off more if it a darker feel to it.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 9:29am

I felt that the lighter feel was more appropriate for ACT I. It made it much more ironic with the cheery dispositions of the characters and the dark tones beneath. It made the second act far more compelling and revealing. I didn't feel the show was that much of a spectacle. The sets blended well and thus didn't destract, IMO.

[jennykett89]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 11:16am

For the production I did the first act was quite colourful and very art nouveau. It had strangely coloured trees with what you could call feminine spirits in the trees almost watching the performers onstage. For the second act, we reversed all the trees so that they were completely white and the set was just blank to show how we're not in happily ever after anymore... I thought it worked quite well...